# Judge to Wisconsin: Not so fast!



## Nurse_Maduro (Oct 23, 2008)

In a move that virtually no one saw coming, Dane County Circuit Judge Juan B. Colás granted a temporary injunction Friday against the state of Wisconsin. Rib Mountain Tobacco and Liquor shop owner Robert Peterson filed the restraining order after the state’s Department of Revenue determined in September that the roll-your-own cigarette machines in Peterson’s shop allowed customers to avoid paying per-pack taxes at the state and federal levels, and declared him and all other shops with the machines as cigarette manufacturers and distributors.


Peterson argued that the customer is the manufacturer, decided the loose tobacco tax he already paid was enough, and filed suit against the state.


There are 52 other tobacco stores containing roll-your-own machines that are affected by the decision. Hearings will resume on November 23.


(from CigarHell.com)


----------



## Nurse_Maduro (Oct 23, 2008)

Now you just KNOW that the government is gonna get their share one way or another. Especially since those state and federal per pack taxes add up to something like $30 a carton! At the same time though, I think Peterson is right - the existing rules don't apply to this situation. He's a distributor, but not a manufacturer, unless they say that, because he's providing the _means_ to manufacture cigarettes, that counts the same as actually manufacturing them himself.

I'm curious to see where this is gonna go.


----------



## Mante (Dec 25, 2009)

Wow! This is an interesting read & I will be interested in the legal outcome. Very grey areas are being visited methinks.


----------



## Nurse_Maduro (Oct 23, 2008)

Tashaz said:


> Wow! This is an interesting read & I will be interested in the legal outcome. Very grey areas are being visited methinks.


Indeed. They'll get their share, but I think they're going to need to at_ least_ tweak the laws first. lol

EDITED to add: If you think this is a grey area, just wait until they start trying to legislate e-cigarettes. That's coming next; I'd bet anything on it.


----------



## fiddlegrin (Feb 8, 2009)

Nurse_Maduro said:


> Peterson argued that the customer is the manufacturer, decided the loose tobacco tax he already paid was enough, and filed suit against the state.
> 
> (from CigarHell.com)


What a GUY___! :clap2:....:clap2:....:clap2:....:clap2:



Nurse_Maduro said:


> ...just wait until they start trying to legislate e-cigarettes. That's coming next; I'd bet anything on it.


Dayumn! :doh:

Thank you for this info good Sir. :high5:

.


----------



## Nurse_Maduro (Oct 23, 2008)

fiddlegrin said:


> What a GUY___! :clap2:....:clap2:....:clap2:....:clap2:
> 
> Dayumn! :doh:
> 
> ...


You got it, brothaman! I'll keep you posted.


----------



## Herf N Turf (Dec 31, 2008)

No kidding! PLEASE keep us posted, John.

I myself am in a "cigarette manufacturing" house. We own a stuffing machine as mentioned in the action. My GF RYO's her daily fix. When SCHIP passed, our taxes went from $6/lb to over $28/lb and that's STILL not enough???

Governments are angry that most RYO smokers have moved to pipe tobaccos, which for now, are immune to the taxes. The more smokers big tobacco lose to RYO and pipe tobacco, the louder the clock ticks on the sacred world of the pipe.


----------



## Nurse_Maduro (Oct 23, 2008)

Herf N Turf said:


> No kidding! PLEASE keep us posted, John.
> 
> I myself am in a "cigarette manufacturing" house. We own a stuffing machine as mentioned in the action. My GF RYO's her daily fix. When SCHIP passed, our taxes went from $6/lb to over $28/lb and that's STILL not enough???
> 
> Governments are angry that most RYO smokers have moved to pipe tobaccos, which for now, are immune to the taxes. The more smokers big tobacco lose to RYO and pipe tobacco, the louder the clock ticks on the sacred world of the pipe.


I'll definitely update this post once the hearings start.

*grinning* :biggrin: You (as a businessman) should know that, as far as the government's concerned, it's _never_ enough, Don. And you're spot on about pipe tobacco becoming a target soon. I'm picking up news stories all over the place on a daily basis where municipalities are including smokeless and other forms of tobaccos (including pipe) under the umbrella of bans and taxes.

And I'm sorry to say that I wasn't joking about e-cigarettes. The CDC is _not_ happy that e-cigs release a negligible amount of nicotine into the air through the mist (I'm not turning this into a discussion on e-cigs; just showing that it doesn't matter what legislation is put into place, because it was never about public health to begin with, it was about control and greed, as far as I'm concerned.).

At this point, it's sad that the only thing that surprises me anymore is when a judge actually rules in _favor _of the merchant.


----------



## Cigar Noob (May 22, 2011)

All the guy has to do is stop selling the rolling machines if he loses. Big deal. He ccould set up a company to only sell machines, and one to sell tobacco. 

This isn't about government greed. It is about the majority rule. Most people don't smoke, therefore smokers are an easy target. Most people also don't want to pay for the resources they use (roads, courts, police, fire dept., etc) they have to get the funds from somewhere and typically aim for the low hanging fruit. 

If only 10% of the population drank coffee or liquor, those products would be heavily taxed and controlled. Example: Utah limits beer to 4%.


----------



## Enrique1780 (Jan 25, 2010)

Thanks for posting this. Very interesting and I'm looking forward to seeing what comes of it.


----------



## Nurse_Maduro (Oct 23, 2008)

Cigar Noob said:


> All the guy has to do is stop selling the rolling machines if he loses. Big deal. He ccould set up a company to only sell machines, and one to sell tobacco.
> 
> This isn't about government greed. It is about the majority rule. Most people don't smoke, therefore smokers are an easy target. Most people also don't want to pay for the resources they use (roads, courts, police, fire dept., etc) they have to get the funds from somewhere and typically aim for the low hanging fruit.
> 
> If only 10% of the population drank coffee or liquor, those products would be heavily taxed and controlled. Example: Utah limits beer to 4%.


When you say something like "all the guy has to do," you have to realize that it's often not that easy. Setting up another company takes revenue that these stores no longer have. The roll-your-own machines aren't for sale; people pay for the usage of them, helping the tobacco shop owner to help compensate for the SCHIP and other tax increases. It's a much-needed source of revenue for brick and mortars.

That's why I posted it here: Even though it deals primarily with cigarettes, this could definitely effect many stores (over 50 in Wisconsin; more if other states use it as precedence) that also stock cigars and pipe tobacco.

As for the rest of your post, we'll just agree to disagree.


----------



## eggopp (Jul 21, 2010)

Good Grief... Like with British Laws over here, our governments like to steal other governments ideas.. I certainly hope no one from the British Government is reading this, waiting and watching for an outcome before they suddenly steal the idea and implement the same in the UK.


----------



## Nurse_Maduro (Oct 23, 2008)

eggopp said:


> Good Grief... Like with British Laws over here, our governments like to steal other governments ideas.. I certainly hope no one from the British Government is reading this, waiting and watching for an outcome before they suddenly steal the idea and implement the same in the UK.


I'm sure they're not...but only because they (like the rest of the world) are probably too busy watching Australia right now. :-(


----------



## Tritones (Jun 23, 2010)

Nurse_Maduro said:


> I'm sure they're not...but only because they (like the rest of the world) are probably too busy watching Australia right now. :-(


Australia was an OK movie, but how many times can you watch ... oh. Never mind.

Scary stuff.


----------



## Herf N Turf (Dec 31, 2008)

Cigar Noob said:


> All the guy has to do is stop selling the rolling machines if he loses. Big deal. He ccould set up a company to only sell machines, and one to sell tobacco.
> 
> This isn't about government greed. It is about the majority rule. Most people don't smoke, therefore smokers are an easy target. Most people also don't want to pay for the resources they use (roads, courts, police, fire dept., etc) they have to get the funds from somewhere and typically aim for the low hanging fruit.
> 
> If only 10% of the population drank coffee or liquor, those products would be heavily taxed and controlled. Example: Utah limits beer to 4%.


1st, UT limits beer alcohol content to 3.2% by volume, not 4%. For >3.2% beer, wine and spirits, you have to source via a state owned shop. I'm not sure your alcohol analogy holds up, since the gubmint indeed taxes, controls, regulates the manufacture, distribution, sale and consumption of alcohol. UT is but one example of the "dry state", but along with it you have TX, VA and many many others.

That tobacco has been singled out for vilification cannot be questioned. It's more about the hypocrisy of the regulation than the regulations themselves. This country was founded on tobacco money. This country was founded by the British for no other reason than to grow tobacco, not as history books would tell you, in order "pick up gold off the beaches", LOL. The silly "pilgrims" had to get permission from Jamestown before they could even scramble off the boat and onto Plymouth rock. Tobacco was literally the cornerstone of British economy and their money is even weighed in it (ever wonder why the Brits call their money "the pound"?). Tobacco funded the American Revolution and our capital dome is wreathed in Tobacco leaves. Duke University and other lauded schools of higher learning were founded by tobacco money.

I don't agree that there's been a concerted attempt to tax tobacco back to the stone age simply because people don't want to pay for judges and roads. We had judges and roads before there WAS taxation (which, I might add, is unconstitutional). It is however, about as you say, "going after the low hanging fruit". No one can argue that smoking or chewing is in any way good for you. As such, it's become an easy target. The gubmint knows full well people will never ever quit smoking, so whenever they want more money, tobacco is an easy target. Through systematic brainwashing through vilification, these taxes and regulation have been inserted like a suppository. Every time we want to do "something for the kids" they bend us over for another dose.


Nurse_Maduro said:


> When you say something like "all the guy has to do," you have to realize that it's often not that easy. Setting up another company takes revenue that these stores no longer have. The roll-your-own machines aren't for sale; people pay for the usage of them, helping the tobacco shop owner to help compensate for the SCHIP and other tax increases. It's a much-needed source of revenue for brick and mortars.
> 
> That's why I posted it here: Even though it deals primarily with cigarettes, this could definitely effect many stores (over 50 in Wisconsin; more if other states use it as precedence) that also stock cigars and pipe tobacco.
> 
> As for the rest of your post, we'll just agree to disagree.


Am I understanding you correctly, John? Is this a place where you go into and "use" the machines on site? I've never heard of that. It would seem simpler to me to just sell the machines and then the consumer would indeed be "the manufacturer".



eggopp said:


> Good Grief... Like with British Laws over here, our governments like to steal other governments ideas.. I certainly hope no one from the British Government is reading this, waiting and watching for an outcome before they suddenly steal the idea and implement the same in the UK.


Why not, Steve? We've been stealing your TV shows for decades!! ound:


----------



## Nurse_Maduro (Oct 23, 2008)

Herf N Turf said:


> Am I understanding you correctly, John? Is this a place where you go into and "use" the machines on site? I've never heard of that. It would seem simpler to me to just sell the machines and then the consumer would indeed be "the manufacturer".


In this case, Don, I believe so. As I understand it, the customer buys the tobacco on premises and then uses a vending machine that roll sit for them, for a fee.

I'd have to check the sources I used for the article (or someone else can; they're here). I definitely saw it reported somewhere in there.


----------



## alyons108 (Oct 26, 2010)

You have it right. Walk in the store, buy a bag of tobacco, buy a package of papers (and filters if you want), place them in the machine (which you are renting from the store), press a button, and the machine rolls the cigs for you. About 1/2 the price of cartons of cigarettes.


----------



## Herf N Turf (Dec 31, 2008)

alyons108 said:


> You have it right. Walk in the store, buy a bag of tobacco, buy a package of papers (and filters if you want), place them in the machine (which you are renting from the store), press a button, and the machine rolls the cigs for you. About 1/2 the price of cartons of cigarettes.


Thanks. WOW! This gets stickier and more complicated by the minute. Again, I've never heard of such a thing and it would seem to me at least that providing the the on-site mechanism for cigarette production, might just make them a defacto manufacturer.

This is fascinating!

edit: WELL! As luck would have it, significant Other just informed me that there's a similar enterprise just a few miles south of us in Petersburg. Ya goes in, ya buys a bag'o baccy and some tubes, ya throws'em into a machine and ya walks out with ciggies! Who knew?

Honestly, while I am dead-set against further regulation against the use and consumption of tobacco products, I'm not sure where I'd begin to argue this under the rules of manufacture. Like I said, "fascinating".


----------



## Nurse_Maduro (Oct 23, 2008)

Herf N Turf said:


> This is fascinating!


In'nt though? :biggrin:

Thanks for letting this topic remain here. I realize that, on the surface, it seems to be about cigarettes; however, for reasons I've stated earlier in the thread, I truly believe this has the potential to trickle down and affect us all.


----------



## alyons108 (Oct 26, 2010)

The machines are too big (maybe 6 ft x 4 ft) and I imagine cost prohibitive for a typical smoker to own him/herself. They must be a major investment for these RYO shops, and without the machines, the RYO shops are just another shop selling loose tobacco and papers/tubes.


----------



## Nurse_Maduro (Oct 23, 2008)

alyons108 said:


> The machines are too big (maybe 6 ft x 4 ft) and I imagine cost prohibitive for a typical smoker to own him/herself. They must be a major investment for these RYO shops, and without the machines, the RYO shops are just another shop selling loose tobacco and papers/tubes.


Exactly. From the one pic I've seen (it was a side view), they reminded me of a slot machine in size and shape.


----------



## Herf N Turf (Dec 31, 2008)

Before I got the skinny from the woman, I was envisioning a bunch of people standing at a counter, cranking Supermatics. When the thread first started, I meant why wouldn't the guy just sell the machines, thinking they were cranks like we have.

As far as leaving the thread, I don't see this as about cigarettes at all, but rather one's personal liberty to consume tobacco without unfair taxation. There's no question that such affairs will eventually show themselves, albeit in a slightly different context, before the entirety of the tobacco marketplace. History has proven that it's only ever just a matter of time.


----------

